he became so much involved in worldly cares and perplexities after his second marriage, as seriously to mar his own peace and comfort. But his course was short. He lived fast; and did much in a little time. "I heard a voice from heaven, saying, Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord, from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and their works do follow them."

ARTICLE IV.

1. The Ministry and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church. By Rev. MONTGOMERY SCHUYLER, Rector of St. John's Church, Buffalo. "Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good." 1 Thess. v. 21. Buffalo: Phinney & Co., pp. 228.

2. The Church: Its Ministry and Worship. Being a reply to the recent work of Rev. M. Schuyler, A. M., on the same Subject. By M. LA RUE P. THOMPSON, Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Buffalo, N. Y. "He that is first in his own cause seemeth just: but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him." Prov. viii. 17. Buffalo: T. & M. Butler, pp. 335.*

WE do not propose noticing the above named works any further than as they refer to a particular topic which has interested us.

This controversy originated with the republication by the Rector of St. Paul's Church, Buffalo, of Dr. Hook's tract on the Three Reformations; prefaced by the editor with some of the usual high and dry amenities towards Christians of other denominations. Dr. Thompson shortly after preached an installation sermon on the Office of a Bishop; and printed it with an appendix in which he replied to Dr. Shelton's preface.

* We consider the part of this Article relating to the "Charge" as interesting and ingenious, and as such commend it to our readers, but are not quite prepared, as we are in relation to the part on the "Ordination," to adopt it as our settled opinion. EDITORS.

Upon this, Rev. Montgomery Schuyler preached and printed a series of discourses on the Ministry and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Mr. Schuyler felt impelled to precipitate his "poor abilities" into the field, in consequence of Dr. Thompson's "most reckless attack on Episcopacy." To this the aforesaid "reckless" assailant replied in the vigorously reasoned and written book, announced above.

It is difficult to keep one's temper in view of the very vulgar claims of high church Episcopalians, a vulgarity which in multitudes of instances proceeds from sheer ignorance. But in this case we have no disposition to be severe upon a feeble opponent, though it is mere literary justice to say in regard to any thing like criticism of the learning, logic and composition of Mr. Schuyler's book, le jeu ne vaut pas la chandelle.

Dr. Thompson, without much pretence to original investigation, has gone over the whole scripture argument for Episcopacy in a thorough and manly way. His real antagonist is not the "Rector of St. John's Church, Buffalo;" nor even the Rector's "beloved diocesan;" but Dr. Onderdonk, from whom whatever there is of force in Mr. Schuyler's book, is borrowed. Dr. Thompson's explosion of the foolish story, so long current among Episcopal writers, of John Calvin's having wished to introduce an episcopacy like that of the English Church, is of the most satisfactory kind.

Into every re-hash of the episcopal controversy, the question of Timothy's ordination enters of course. We propose at present giving only a brief view of the argument; and that as introductory to an examination of the "prophecies that went before" on Timothy: or what may be called Timothy's 66 charge."

The two passages affecting the question of Timothy's ordination are these:

1 Tim. iv. 14. "Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery."

2 Tim. i. 6. "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands."

It is admitted on all hands that these two passages refer to

the same event, and show that Timothy was "ordained" or designated to office in the Church, by the joint act of several ministers, including the apostle Paul, and a number of others described as presbyters. We do not at all doubt that Paul, as an inspired apostle, was competent singly to ordain Timothy. Suppose we admit, for the present, the force of the Episcopal criticism which insists that there is a plain distinction between "WITH the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," and "BY the laying on of my hands;" the latter proposition implying that the laying on of Paul's hands alone conveyed the warrant for the exercise of ministerial functions.

Then the apostle must have associated a body of presbyters with him as a warrant for Presbyterian ordinations when the apostolic office should have expired by necessary limitation, as it soon did. Paul might have ordained alone as an apostle. He chose to ordain in company with his "fellow elders," and as their equal.

There is no evidence that Paul presided, though it is likely enough. Still less that he alone acted officially, while the rest merely imposed hands to signify concurrence. Episcopal writers have long ago been invited to produce an instance in the Scriptures where imposition of hands indicated simply concurrence, instead of authoritative action.

Besides, the claim is that this was Timothy's ordination as bishop; and if it was not, there is no evidence of his having ever been ordained or consecrated to that office. But how came presbyters to impose hands under any pretence whatever on a bishop? We know that, according to Episcopal usage, presbyters lay on hands with the bishop at the ordination of presbyters, just as a mere matter of form, while in fact all the grace goes through the ends of the bishop's fingers. But who ever heard, in Episcopacy, of presbyters laying on their hands at the consecration of a bishop?

To avoid this dificulty, it is not uncommon for Episcopal writers to suggest that this was Timothy's ordination to the presbyterate; and they invariably quote Calvin's opinion, which he afterwards altered, for that interpretation. Neglect not the gift of the presbyterate which is in thee, which was given thee with the laying on of hands.

Suppose this the correct view. This was Timothy's ordination as presbyter. But this ordination is the only one referred to by Paul as the warrant and guide of his subsequent labors; labors claimed to have been distinctly episcopal. Timothy was to ordain (lay hands suddenly on no man); he was to exercise jurisdiction (against an elder receive not thou accusation but before two or three witnesses); he was authoritatively to rebuke those that sinned. Generally, he was to exercise supervision and government over the Church; and all this on the ground of his ordination to the presbyterate!

This will never do. We must fall back, therefore, on the received interpretation that this was Timothy's ordination to the episcopate, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.

Dr. Onderdonk, and others after him, raise a cloud of dust about the character of the members who composed this Presbytery. After making trial of that turn of the dilemma which supposes "presbytery" to mean "the presbyterate," they seem generally to prefer the other; and settle on the opinion that this was Timothy's ordination as bishop. Thus the difficulty is to show that it was not a presbyterial ordination.

To meet this difficulty, Episcopal writers suppose the whole presbytery consisted of apostles. Dr. Onderdonk mystifies the matter as follows: "Of whom was this ordaining Presbytery composed? Taken alone it can be interpreted of any kind of elders. Those who think they find ruling elders in Scripture, may suppose it to have been made up of them. Others may claim that it was the grade called presbyters; or, as St. Peter and St. John call themselves "elders," the Presbytery may have consisted of apostles. Or, lastly, it may have consisted of any two of the kinds of elders mentioned, or of all three. There may have been ruling elders; or presbyters; or presbyters and one or more apostles; or ruling elders and presbyters and apostles. There are no less than seven modes (if we seek no further evidence) in which this Presbytery may have been composed, &c. The mere expression "Presbytery,' therefore, does not explain itself, and cannot of itself be adduced in favor of parity."

* Episcopacy tested, &c., p. 21.

Mr. Schuyler borrows all this, and appeals to it as evidence of the insufficiency of private judgment in matters of religion. "To aid us at arriving at the meaning of this passage,” he says, "let us see if there is anything to be found in the early Fathers bearing on this point. In all probability, were we to submit the passage to the private judgment of the different individuals who compose this congregation, there would be a great variety of opinions as to the meaning of the term 'Presbytery,' so far as it could be gathered from the Bible. Some would contend that it was composed of apostles alone; and others of apostles with presbyters associated; and others of preaching elders or presbyters and ruling elders, &c."*

Now, as a matter of fact, there is no room for doubt on this subject whatever. All this hypothetical jangling of private judgments is drummed up for the occasion, by the writers themselves. ПpεBUTEpíor means simply a "body of presbyters ;" and what presbyters were, we know perfectly well from the apostolic letters. "Presbyters," otherwise called "bishops," were the ordinary pastors and rulers of the churches; ordained by the apostles in every city; those whose qualifications with reference to that office, are so fully laid down in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.

No one who had not a particular end to answer would pretend that where solemn official action is referred to, the name descriptive of office would be used in any other than its strict and proper sense. Dr. Hobart ventures to plead the primary meaning of the word;” Πρεσβυτερίου from πρέσβυς—an old man which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the old men. This is what Bishop Hobart himself stigmatized, in one of his opponents, as "the contemptible sophistry of names;" and that in its most paltry form. "Senator" means 66 old man" just as much as poßus does; but whoever would undertake to prove that a certain bill was no law, though it bore to have been enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives, because "senate" meant only a "collection of old men," and there was no knowing what sort of old men they might be, would of course be unanimously "written down an ass."

The Church, &c., p. 73.